Seriously. I can't remember why grains have been labeled as such an important part of our diets. I have almost eliminated grains from my diet and feel tons better. I have read and been told by so many people that grains make them feel terrible. I gain weight when I eat them and they make me bloated. So, why are we supposed to eat them? What vitamins/minerals am I missing by not eating them. I get lots of fiber from beans and whole fruits and vegetables. BM's are not an issue for me. I get lots of carbs from those same foods too. Is there something in them that I can't get elsewhere?

There are so many opinions- whole grains supply protein, carbs, fiber, vitamins, minerals. That said, I don't do well with grains and keep them to a minimum. You can get the vitamins etc. elsewhere like you're doing.

Because the USDA pyramid says so. Bah ha ha ha. Seriously, the only reason people think we need grains is because the grain belt lobbied hard enough to get themselves the whole entire bottom rung of the pyramid, right?

Like you, I have read in so many places that grains (esp. gluten-containing ones) are not good for health and indeed cause or aggravate many conditions. I also don't eat many and feel much better without them. I can't seem to resist an occasional (or sometimes more frequent) toasted cheese sandwich on sprouted grain bread though...

I think they would be considered more important to most people who eat the SAD (Standard American Diet). Most people do not eat much fruit or vegetables and legumes. If you're eating a diet of processed junk, meat, and dairy, grains would probably be the main way you get many nutrients such as folate and several vitamins.

But if you are eating a whole foods diet rich in plant foods, I don't think grains would be that important. When I was doing Fuhrman E2L hard-core, I had practically phased them out to excellent health. But most people don't eat that way. So I think to the masses, suggesting grains is an easy way to insure that most people get many nutrients. It is easier to tell people to eat bread and crackers than it is to tell them to eat vegetables and beans.

For me, as a vegan, they provide a variety of protein in addition to the legumes and nuts/seeds I consume. They also provide a nice variety of actual food items in my diet. I'm not going to be giving them up any time soon. That being said, I have switched in the past 6 months or so to eating as many whole grain products as I can - ww pasta, ww English Muffins, brown rice, etc.

I don't know if you were looking for a purely biological response, but I can help you out with that.

It is essential for the body to eat grains because starch is what fuels all energy processes within all of our cells. The body breaks carbohydrates down into glucose, which breaks down into a product called adenosine triphosphate which is our cells' energy currency.

Of course, the human body is smart enough to have a back-up plan. If you eat only protein and fat and fruits/veggies (which are essentially carbs but still need additional processing), you will still get the energy you need, but your body will need to go to extra lengths to convert it into ATP. It will need to go through alternate pathways to become glucose, and will create by-products which will put a strain on your kidneys.

Oh, I forgot to mention that if the body needs to use fat and protein to make ATP, it will not be using them for their vital bodily processes such as tissue regeneration and organ protection.

You can always try it out and see how you feel, but just so you know the biological explanation for what is happening, there it is. Our bodies are designed to run on carbs/glucose.

Peaceful mama to three blissfully-birthed and incredible small people: dd10, dd7 and ds5. Always awed and so thankful to be a midwife.

It is essential for the body to eat grains because starch is what fuels all energy processes within all of our cells. The body breaks carbohydrates down into glucose, which breaks down into a product called adenosine triphosphate which is our cells' energy currency.

Of course, the human body is smart enough to have a back-up plan. If you eat only protein and fat and fruits/veggies (which are essentially carbs but still need additional processing)

I also don't get the difference between carbs in veggies and carbs in grains. The body has to break down whole grains and well as whole vegetables are you arguing that the starch is less available in a carrot or beet as in whole wheat?

I don't understand either. I have never been a big "no carb" person at all. The only real carb that I have to be very careful with are grains, because they effect my weight dramatically. I mean I can excersize and eat nothing but healthy foods, and I will still gain weight if I eat grains. My diet is really rich in carbohydrates. I eat tons of beans and tons of fruit. Lots of vegetables, both cooked and raw. I also eat a small amount of meat/dairy each day. My fat intake is relatively high because I don't really believe in low fat, just good fat. So if I am eating the same amount of carbs in a day without the grains, am I still risking deficiencies or a negative stress on my body? I can maintain my body weight by eating 1-2 grains/day, but I can't loose anything without eliminating them. I still have 18lbs to loose which will put me at 120lbs which is still a good meaty weight for my height. I also have way more energy not eating them, when I replace them with beans/vegetables/fruit.

I don't know if you were looking for a purely biological response, but I can help you out with that.

It is essential for the body to eat grains because starch is what fuels all energy processes within all of our cells. The body breaks carbohydrates down into glucose, which breaks down into a product called adenosine triphosphate which is our cells' energy currency.

Of course, the human body is smart enough to have a back-up plan. If you eat only protein and fat and fruits/veggies (which are essentially carbs but still need additional processing), you will still get the energy you need, but your body will need to go to extra lengths to convert it into ATP. It will need to go through alternate pathways to become glucose, and will create by-products which will put a strain on your kidneys.

Oh, I forgot to mention that if the body needs to use fat and protein to make ATP, it will not be using them for their vital bodily processes such as tissue regeneration and organ protection.

You can always try it out and see how you feel, but just so you know the biological explanation for what is happening, there it is. Our bodies are designed to run on carbs/glucose.

I'm lovin you for the Krebs cycle, Maia, but you lost me with the grains. Our BRAIN needs glucose to survive, and there is PLENTY of unrefined glucose in fruits, beans, vegetables.

The process you're referring to where protein is made in to ATP (& ADP) is called ketosis, and you're very correct, this is a major problem with "Atkins".

Sorry, I guess I'm a dummy, because I didn't really consider the starches in veggies and fruits. : I guess it's because it is most abundant and usable in grains... but surely you could get it other ways. The problem only starts when you have no carbohydrates and your body is forced to draw on protein/fat stores. I guess the reason why I was so gung-ho about grains was because I've never known anyone who had any reason not to eat grains unless they had an actually allergy or condition preventing them from doing so.

Glucose is used as the energy currency in every single cell in our body. Our bodies use glucose to go through respiration, the process by which we create energy. Glucose is the main component necessary to undergo respiration. Without it, we could not create energy. Ketosis actually doesn't have much at all to do with respiration. Ketosis occurs when you have no carbohydrates ot not enough carbohydrates in your body, and your body is forced to begin depleting your fat stores in an attempt to make energy, leaving behind a by-product called a ketone. A build-up of ketones puts stress on your filtering systems, as ketones are acidic, and too many can disturb your body's delicate acid-alkaline balance. :

Overall though mamas, you've gotta do what you've gotta do to make your bodies feel good. Your intuition will tell you if what you're doing is unhealthy. I'm sure that as long as you're getting some good carbs from fruits/veggies/beans, you'll be fine, but all all-out Atkin's approach does harm.

Trust your body, not a textbook. I was just trying to contribute some textbook info for interest's sake.

Peaceful mama to three blissfully-birthed and incredible small people: dd10, dd7 and ds5. Always awed and so thankful to be a midwife.

I'm a Biology and Chemistry dbl major (only 4 more classes this semester and I will have my BS) I would hope I know something about all this. Glucose is very easy to get in other sources besides grains....the Eskimos for example (well in the old days, I'm not sure how they currently eat) ate a diet void of grains (actualy most carbs right?), they lived on protein and fat almost exclusivly and are considered one of the healthies people on earth. Glucose from grains isn't necessary at all and doesn't create any problems with energy transfer, etc. Your body can derive energy from protein, fats, veggies, etc just fine.

I don't know, maybe I'm just being overly sensitive about this, but I feel like I just offered what little knowledge I did have and sort of got booed because of it. What I was saying wasn't my personal opinion, it was what you would see if you opened any Biology textbook and read about cellular respiration. At this rate, I'm sorry I even said anything. I never denied that women could be healthy by just eating veggies/fruit, I'm sorry if I came off that way. I think health can't only centre around what one eats, there are so many other factors. And like I said previously, whatever makes you feel good and energetic is probably what's right for your body.

Much love mamas, sorry if I rubbed anyone the wrong way.

Peaceful mama to three blissfully-birthed and incredible small people: dd10, dd7 and ds5. Always awed and so thankful to be a midwife.

A question for those who say grains hinder their weight loss. Isn't weight loss just calories in and calories out? I don't know all the right words and formulas. Something about the calories your body needs to keep you alive (Is that BMR?) and having a calorie deficit. Sorry, I know I'm probably not making any sense. Maybe someone else can say it better.

Hormones, especially insulin play a *HUGE* role in fat storage, cravings, blood glucose levels, etc. When your insulin rises your body starts storing fat, even if you are not eating a whole lot-that is why you hear about fat people saying they are not eating a lot but are still gaining weight, it can be true.

This is something especially prevalient now with our high consumption of carbs (things like bread, pasta, crackers, etc). Some people are almost not affected by this (like my husband, he can eat anything and his insulin never rises about 90,...of course over time that could change for him as his pancreas wears down from pumping out so much insulin to keep up), but a lot of us are...I can actually see how it affects me because I have a glucose monitor and can see my actual levels.

A lot of good research is starting to come out about all this as we are learning more and more about obesity, why some people just don't get fat even though they do everything "wrong", etc

It is all really fascinating to me because I am going to grad school next year for Epidemiology and plan on doing some research on this.

I don't know, maybe I'm just being overly sensitive about this, but I feel like I just offered what little knowledge I did have and sort of got booed because of it. What I was saying wasn't my personal opinion, it was what you would see if you opened any Biology textbook and read about cellular respiration. At this rate, I'm sorry I even said anything. I never denied that women could be healthy by just eating veggies/fruit, I'm sorry if I came off that way. I think health can't only centre around what one eats, there are so many other factors. And like I said previously, whatever makes you feel good and energetic is probably what's right for your body.

Much love mamas, sorry if I rubbed anyone the wrong way.

No worries, don't sweat the small stuff. There is a lot of controversy about it all is the thing, especially protein and ketosis, etc It is not as simple as the Krebs Cycle (when it comes to nutrition and how things are broken down and transfered).

There is still SO MUCH they do not know about nutrition/obesity/etc at all. Some people can eat a lot of grains and do fine, some eat a small amount and have problems (which is most people). Most people they think start off fine with grains but over time the Islet cell of the pancreas getting beaten down basically so they don't function at a normal level or stop working all together. Pretty scarey.

What really annoys the heck out of me is the food pyramid. I mean they think grains are things like bread (not even ww is all that great for you), crackers, pasta, etc and don't emphazise enough true whole grains.

Anyways, if you really like Biology (you said you did!) you should take some more classes, even just for fun. I'm a Bio and Chem major and I just fell in love with it (started off an English major) and you just learn so much! I study mainly Microbiology and Human Biology. I will be starting graduate school in Epidemiology and Bio Stats next year. Epidemiology is really fascinating.

blissful_maia, please don't feel that way. I asked the grain question for a reason. I don't know. All I know is that I have been overweight my whole life, from an infant to an adult. The ONLY thing that reduces my weight is cutting back on grain products. I just finished the Eat to Live program, which basically eliminates all but 1 grain serving a day and emphasizes lots of beans and vegetables. I have been doing everything under the sun to loose wieght and nothing else worked. After the first 6 weeks I started adding 2 servings of grains/day and changed nothing else. I have been excersizing at least 4 times a week (hard core classes at the gym). I decided to just eliminate them once again and I'm back to a 1-2lb loss/week again.

I just want to make sure I'm not hurting myself by depriving my body of vital nutrients. I am confident that I am getting enough calories, protien and carbs. I asked because everywhere you look, it's recommended that people eat 6-12 servings of grains/day.

A question for those who say grains hinder their weight loss. Isn't weight loss just calories in and calories out? I don't know all the right words and formulas. Something about the calories your body needs to keep you alive (Is that BMR?) and having a calorie deficit. Sorry, I know I'm probably not making any sense. Maybe someone else can say it better.

It is, but grains are lot more calorie dense than vegetables (which are more nutrient-dense).

I think that is one of the reasons Eat to Live works so well, because you fill up on such nutrient dense food that is also very low in calories.

100 calories of bread would be like 2 small slices, but 100 calories of vegetables would be a huge plate!

For me I find it at least slightly confusing because there is so much contradictory information out there and a lot of it at least pretends to be scientific. I guess the body is just so complex that 'they' aren't really sure how it all affects other goings on.

The most convincing for me is the fact that people have only been eating grains for a few thousand years and they have to be cooked to be digestible. Surely that shows they are not natural? At least with meat, our digestive systems slightly adapted to digest it although that's relatively recent too. The eskimos aren't the only traditional people not eating a lot of grains and I find those arguments a lot more convincing than the protein/starch/glucose of recent years which may be something different tomorrow...

I used to think I felt healthy on grains and it is only since I have cut out a lot of other junk that I don't feel right on a lot of grains. It's not a question of losing weight either, more a question of feeling they are not giving me enough.

cjr- i dont' specifically have the answer to your question but i feel great when i eat grains (whole including wheat). i've tried to do the anti-candida diet and was able to go several weeks and then quit. blah

grains are cheap and available
keep me from eating less meat
yummy
there are days that is all my son will eat!

so that's why i eat them. i want to say more but i just remembered i gotta wash diapers.

Maia, I've been following this thread avidly, because it's one of the nutrition points I've pondered. Please don't feel that folks were attacking you - I think they were engaging you in very polite debate And your info on the Krebs cycle was dead on... as you noted, though, it didn't take into account other sources of carbohydrates. If that's the worst mistake you ever make on these forums, count yourself lucky It was actually a very good description of the Krebs cycle for folks who might not have known about it.

I also think that we're still learning a lot about the effects of hormones and digestion on how carbohydrates, fats and proteins affect us. The newest research definately shows that carbohydrate restricted diets do cause you to lose more weight than a similar-calorie low fat diet, and with far less stress and craving. And there definately is a difference between ketosis, which diabetics experiene and which damages organs, and ketoacidosis, which is more controlled. I've been watching carefully for more data on that, because I do see an awful lot of traditional cultures that eat extremely low on the carb scale (such as the Inuits) and thrive.

As for myself, I have definately found that I feel healthier on low/no grain diets. I am *such* a carb-oholic. But, when I cut out the grains, I feel healthier and more energetic and lose weight easily. I've also tested positive for gluten antibodies. Even though the positive wasn't strong enough to call it celiac disease, my father has celiac and I'm very alert to the possibility that I could develop it. Problem is, every time I get lazy and let them back into my diet just a little (because an almond butter sandwich is *such* an easy lunch sometimes...) it just snowballs and I start gaining again.

I'm back to no grain, and feeling great. In theory, I'd be happy with a bit of brown rice occasionally, but haven't gotten around to it in a few weeks. I do also occasionally break diet for a special occasion - dinner at a good restaurant (which happens about once every few months), family barbeques, parties. I'd say once a week or less. I thrive on a moderate amount of meat (that is, a small amount at most meals, rarely a large amount. I'm not doing the Atkin's 16 ounce steaks ) a small amount of raw dairy (especially yogurt and kefir), tons of veggies and a moderate amount of fruit (2-3 servings a day), plus some nuts and seeds. Problem is, I get really lazy sometimes at lunch and end up eating just a handful of almonds or something because I don't feel like cooking any meat. I'm roasting a pot roast now, which my dh won't eat, so that should be good for quite a few lunches for me and dd.

I still serve grains to my family. Dh loves them and the kids need them for their dense calories. They don't eat 12 servings though, more like 2-3. I enjoy them, I just find I do better and feel better without them. It took some getting used to, but I don't miss them at all. I miss sweet more than anything and will have a bite of brownie because I want the sweeness.

I don't know, maybe I'm just being overly sensitive about this, but I feel like I just offered what little knowledge I did have and sort of got booed because of it. What I was saying wasn't my personal opinion, it was what you would see if you opened any Biology textbook and read about cellular respiration. At this rate, I'm sorry I even said anything. I never denied that women could be healthy by just eating veggies/fruit, I'm sorry if I came off that way. I think health can't only centre around what one eats, there are so many other factors. And like I said previously, whatever makes you feel good and energetic is probably what's right for your body.

Much love mamas, sorry if I rubbed anyone the wrong way.

Lo siento, mama. Was NOT trying to down ya, just offering another detail in that cycle...I know it's great knowledge, and it's nice to consider all the aspects!

The most convincing for me is the fact that people have only been eating grains for a few thousand years and they have to be cooked to be digestible. Surely that shows they are not natural? At least with meat, our digestive systems slightly adapted to digest it although that's relatively recent too.

Did you know that our digestive system, when compared with a carnivorous animal with canine teeth, absorbs the toxins from meat that a carnivore would excrete? Our small intestines are much more convoluted and complex than a carnivores. I just think that's so interesting in the consideration of "evolution of eating", yk? We've not fully evolved into carnivores, and I wonder if that really IS an evolutionary goal? From the amount of land needed to raise animals in a world that is closing in, the amount of colon cancer we suffer...

In the same vein, when we began cooking grain, did it mess with the evolutionary digestive system of the monkey with the opposable thumb? Is that what CAUSED our digestive system to become more convoluted in the first place, so we could absorb what little nutrition is in grain?

Could it be, the American "cheeseburger in paradise" , with its toxin-ridden meat and nutrient lacking white bread, is our ultimate poison??

I know if I eat too many carbs it is terrible...my vision gets blurry, I get tired, I gain weight for what seems like no reason, can't concentrate, etc I can do ok with very small amount of whole grains. Like tonight for dinner we had tilapia, broccoli and about 1/4 cup of pinto beans. I feel good. I try to stay way from all flour (even ww) but do have it now and then...homemade bread with butter and honey just tastes so dang good! Oatmeal doesn't seem to affect me as much either and I have that once a week or so, but most any other grains...I can't handle them at all.

People knock Atkins but I do give him some credit; he was one of the first Dr's to go mainstream about how food affects our hormones (mainly insulin)...that was a pretty big statement in his day (I think his book came out in the 70's???) to make and others have took his beginning research and expounded more upon it. But gosh, they are just now it seems really understanding all this as are we.

That is something I am interested in as well. I know next semester I am taking an evolutionary comparative biology class, so I am hoping to learn more about all this. It's something I have read about here and there but honestly don't know much about....are humans supposed to be carnivores or vegetarians? I don't know, I'm not sure anyone really knows for sure since you see societies of both doing equally well. Maybe it doesn't really matter and matters most what our food sources are as a whole, chemicals in our foods, toxins, etc

I think we all can agree to our horrible meat supply, crappy grains/carbs so many people eat, etc.

Nobody has said anything about the history or economics of eating grains. I wish I could say something really smart about it! But I really can't. I'm going to just put down my thoughts.

Humans in most of the world grew their populations through agriculture. In Asia this mainly meant rice, some other grains too like barley. In Europe this mainly meant wheat, some other grains too (like barley!)

The Inuit people might be very healthy on their diet, but they aren't exactly threatening to overpopulate their traditional areas, right?

In Europe population would grow too large for acriculture to support and then there would be famine and it would cut back the population. In other parts of the world, other starches supported populations. For example, in South America, potatoes and other tubers were important. When the European explorers brought potatoes back to Europe, they proved to be a lot more efficient than grain. In many countries, the potato became a LARGE part of the food supply. IN grad school I learned that this enabled the industrial revolution in Europe because the overpopulation in the rural areas became a base of low-income people who needed work in the cities. (It's not all about the enclosure movement, no matter what Karl Marx said about "primitive accumulation.")

All of which is to say, it's cheaper to keep people fed on starches and it's a traditional way to keep people healthy and alive. Bread is the traditional staple food of Europeans. Grains are really nutritious--they have a lot of calories, they supply the macronutrient carbohydrates, and they also have a lot of micronutrients if they are eaten whole and unrefined. The reason that no one has ever based a diet entirely on green vegetables (as in the Eat to Live diet) is that they don't provide enough calories to a society in which people do physical work, and because green vegetables aren't available year round in most places in the world. That diet is a very low calorie diet! It works for people who try it in an affluent society because we can afford to pay other people to grow vegetables for us instead of food for themselves and then pay other people to schlep that food for us around the world.

It's all about our historical moment and our position in the world economy.